Management of cutaneous side effects of EGFR inhibitors: recommendations from a German expert panel for the primary treating physician

Inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are increasingly used in the treatment of various entities of malignant tumors. Patients treated with EGFR inhibitors very likely develop cutaneous side effects. The development of a papulopustular, follicular exanthema during the first weeks of therapy correlates with therapeutic benefit. However, this exanthema and other cutaneous side effects can impair the quality of life of the patient and might limit the therapy with the EGFR inhibitor. For an optimal therapeutic benefit and quality of life an adequate management of cutaneous side effects is necessary. A panel of German dermatologists developed on the basis of personal experience and current literature consensus recommendations for the management of cutaneous side effects of EGFR inhibitors.     

Consensus‐based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults and children: part I

This guideline was developed as a joint interdisciplinary European project, including physicians from all relevant disciplines as well as patients. It is a consensus‐based guideline, taking available evidence from other guidelines, systematic reviews and published studies into account. This first part of the guideline covers methods, patient perspective, general measures and avoidance strategies, basic emollient treatment and bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti‐inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy, whereas the second part covers antimicrobial therapy, systemic treatment, allergen‐specific immunotherapy, complementary medicine, psychosomatic counselling and educational interventions. Management of AE must consider the individual clinical variability of the disease; highly standardized treatment rules are not recommended. Basic therapy is focused on treatment of disturbed barrier function by hydrating and lubricating topical treatment, besides further avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Topical anti‐inflammatory treatment based on glucocorticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors is used for flare management and for proactive therapy for long‐term control. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, whereas tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in sensitive skin areas and for long‐term use. Topical phosphodiesterase inhibitors may be a treatment alternative when available. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation, preferably with UVB 311 nm or UVA1. Pruritus is targeted with the majority of the recommended therapies, but some patients may need additional antipruritic therapy. Antimicrobial therapy, systemic anti‐inflammatory treatment, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational intervention will be addressed in part II of the guideline.     

Comparison of three screening tools to detect psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis (CONTEST study)

Background Multiple questionnaires to screen for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been developed but the optimal screening questionnaire is unknown. Objectives To compare three PsA screening questionnaires in a head‐to‐head study using CASPAR (the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) as the gold standard. Methods This study recruited from 10 U.K. secondary care dermatology clinics. Patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis, not previously diagnosed with PsA, were given all three questionnaires. All patients who were positive on any questionnaire were invited for a rheumatological assessment. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve of the three questionnaires according to CASPAR criteria. Results In total, 938 patients with psoriasis were invited to participate and 657 (70%) patients returned the questionnaires. One or more questionnaires were positive in 314 patients (48%) and 195 (62%) of these patients attended for assessment. Of these, 47 patients (24%) were diagnosed with PsA according to the CASPAR criteria. The proportion of patients with PsA increased with the number of positive questionnaires (one questionnaire, 19·1%; two, 34·0%; three, 46·8%). Sensitivities and specificities for the three questionnaires, and areas under the ROC curve were, respectively: Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Evaluation (PASE), 74·5%, 38·5%, 0·594; Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST), 76·6%, 37·2%, 0·610; Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS), 76·6%, 29·7%, 0·554. The majority of patients with a false positive response had degenerative or osteoarthritis. Conclusion Although the PEST and ToPAS questionnaires performed slightly better than the PASE questionnaire at identifying PsA, there is little difference between these instruments. These screening tools identify many cases of musculoskeletal disease other than PsA.